Appearance Alert: Northwest Liberty News
James White and I talk about ICWA, the Supreme Court and more.
Earlier today, I appeared on Northwest Liberty News to talk about ICWA and the US Supreme Court case: Brackeen Vs Haaland.
I have previously discussed ICWA, the Indian Child Welfare Act: article one, article two, and article three.
As I mentioned in the broadcast, this story is timely because the US Supreme Court recently heard- on November 9- Brackeen Vs Haaland.
Find the oral arguments here.
That case involved the Navajo tribe attempting to interject itself into an adoption because the child had Native American blood. Here is what I said previously.
Here is part of the Wikipedia page for the case, “In June 2016, a 10-month-old Navajo boy was placed with Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, a former civil engineer and an anesthesiologist, respectively, after his Navajo mother (who lived in Texas) was found to be using drugs.”
In this case, the Navajo nation challenged the adoption and attempt to intercede to place the child with a member of their tribe.
There is a practical argument that such intervention doesn’t help and only causes further disruption in the child’s life.
As I noted to Jim, the counterargument is an emotional one which focuses on centuries of exploitation by whites against Native Americans: exploitation that pre-dates the Trail of Tears under President Andrew Jackson.
This exploitation has all but obliterated their culture, and ICWA is in place to keep the bloodlines going.
Some of the coverage from media favorable to Native Americans exhibits this emotional argument.
Intervening Tribal parties in Brackeen v. Haaland (2021) would take to a podium outside of the Supreme Court to share sentiments about what had occurred during the hearing, as well as to share key takeaways. Guest speakers included Tehassi Hill, Chairman of the Oneida Nation; Robert Martin, Tribal Chairman of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians; and Fawn Sharp, member of the Quinault Nation and President of the National Congress of American Indians.
“The biggest takeaway for us is I think we are all realizing we’re at a sacred moment in time, and I’ve called it a sacred moment because we are that seventh generation and our ancestors long foretold a day of reckoning when this world wasn’t going to be sustainable,” said Fawn Sharp in the livestream interview with NDN Collective. “It is the Native people that are bringing people together with our common values that are undeniable, that we should be treated equally, and live as our creator intended.”
“I just know we are on the right side and that’s going to continue to solidify us because I think each and every one of us feel this and we want to find ways to come together,” said Sharp. “And we are coming together and we are going to continue to make advancements.”
The reflections after the hearing shared by Tribal leaders captured the determined energy that was present outside of the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning. Indigenous Peoples from many Nations gathered together in solidarity, directly confronting the threat being posed to the protection of Indigenous children. Should Justices of the Supreme Court decide to rule against the statutory arguments being made against the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), it could be catastrophic to federal statutes that impact Indigenous communities, including Indian gaming, healthcare, land, and water rights. As this case continues, Tribal communities and allies will unquestionably continue to stand in defense of the inherent rights held as the first peoples of this nation.
Here is another one.
This Native November or Native American Heritage Month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in the case Haaland v. Brackeen. The conservative majority court, which has already upended 50 years of women’s reproductive rights, is considering challenges to 60 years of affirmative action on college campuses and, on Nov. 9, began considering overturning a nearly 45-year-old federal law that prioritizes placement of Native children with Native families in foster and adoption cases. The case also has the potential to throw a grenade in centuries-old federal tribal protections.
It is imperative that Cornellians take note of this Supreme Court case. Cornell, like many institutions across the United States, exists without the cession of sovereignty over the land, which Native peoples once held over the entire continent. As informed global citizens at an institution which leads the way in cutting-edge research and entrepreneurship, we must also remember our history, and acknowledge those hard parts of the past, to create a better future. We encourage Cornellians to reflect on what battles Indigenous people are still facing every day in this country, and what we can do to help our communities maintain healthy and thriving lifeways for the generations to come.
As Native people, we remember a time when our children were taken from us. The times when our children were taken from us forcibly are not part of a distant past — these things happened to our grandparents and parents. Their lives were lived far away from their communities, without their languages and without their culture. They lived in a white world, where they were taught that to simply exist as a Native person was a crime that should be washed out of our skin, our hair, our eyes and our souls.
In Cari Esparaza’s case, her ex-boyfriend received sole custody- using ICWA- despite the fact that he is a registered sex offender.
The emotional argument above will ignore even that inconvenient fact in favor of anything which keeps Native American children with Native American parents.